From Publishers Weekly
Women serving in the armed forces deserve their nation's thanks, law professor Browne announces in his first paragraph, quickly adding that they are unfit to be soldiers. To support his argument, Browne presents an avalanche of intriguing psychological and military studies that examine male-female differences. He points to evidence that men are generally better able to carry the necessary gear, and that although even noncombatant women must be prepared to fight hand-to-hand, they are generally more cautious: we would rather solve the situation; if somebody has to die, then nobody really wins, explains one. Men have superior hand-eye coordination and situational awareness as well as a greater willingness to take risks and function better in hierarchies, he says. Women are more democratic and tend to resent taking orders, especially from other women, but overwhelmingly oppose complete equality (e.g., being assigned combat roles involuntarily on the same basis as men). Since Browne makes no secret of his opinion and is a lawyer, readers may suspect they are hearing only one side of the case. Still, the question of how women should be treated within the military is timely. (Nov. 1)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
About the Author
Kingsley Browne is a professor of law at Wayne State University Law School, specializing in employment discrimination and other aspects of employment law. He also teaches evidence, torts, and a seminar in law, biology, and behavior. Prior to law school, he did graduate work in physical anthropology. A former U.S. Supreme Court clerk, he spent five years in private practice before switching to teaching.